14-apf-intro.pdf - Holocaust Handbooks

EDITED BY GERMAR RUDOLF
AUSCHWITZ:
PLAIN FACTS
A RESPONSE TO JEAN-CLAUDE PRESSAC
WITH CONTRIBUTIONS BY ROBERT FAURISSON,
CARLO MATTOGNO, GERMAR RUDOLF AND SERGE THION
PUBLISHED BY THE BARNES REVIEW
P.O. BOX 15877
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20003

HOLOCAUST HANDBOOKS SERIES—VOLUME 14:
Auschwitz: Plain Facts—A Response to Jean-Claude Pressac
Edited by GERMAR RUDOLF
The contribution by Carlo Mattogno (Italian) was translated by Anne Sharp. The
contributions by R. Faurisson (French) and Germar Rudolf (German) were translated
by Michael Humphrey. The contribution by Serge Thion was translated by
himself and Mark Weber.
Originally published by Castle Hill Publishers (an imprint of Theses & Dissertation
Press) —September 2005
Reprinted by THE BARNES REVIEW—November 2010
ISBN: 978-0-9742303-7-5
ISSN: 1529-7748
Published by THE BARNES REVIEW
Manufactured in the United States of America
Distribution USA/America:
TBR BOOKS,THE BARNES REVIEW
P.O. Box 15877
Washington, D.C. 20003, USA
1-877-773-9077
Distribution Europe/Africa: Castle Hill Publishers
P.O. Box 243
Uckfield, TN22 9AW, UK
Distribution Australia/Asia: Peace Books, P.O. Box 3300
Norwood, 5067, Australia
www.BarnesReview.com
www.HolocaustHandbooks.com
www.vho.org/GB/Books/atcfs
If these sites are inaccessible, try it with www.anonymizer.com
Set in Times New Roman
Cover illustrations left to right: Jean-Claude Pressac; photo of the disinfestation facility
in the gypsy camp at Auschwitz; letter by the Topf company to the Central
Construction Office Auschwitz in regard to gas testers (see 183 of this book).

Table of Contents
Page
Preface ..............................................................................................................9
By Germar Rudolf
1. The End of Jean-Claude Pressac ..............................................................9
2. Should there Be Freedom for Revisionism?...........................................10
3. Unrestricted Research and Revision: Basis of Science ..........................11
4. Toward Freedom of Expression .............................................................15
5. Battle Zone “Common Knowledge” ......................................................16
6. On the Defense of Human Rights...........................................................18
Pressac and the German Public....................................................................21
By Germar Rudolf
1. The Claim...............................................................................................21
1.1. The Media ................................................................................................ 21
1.2. The Judicial System ................................................................................. 24
1.3. The Historians.......................................................................................... 26
2. The Reality .............................................................................................27
2.1. The Scientific Basis.................................................................................. 27
2.2. Technology and Physical Science ............................................................ 28
2.3. Historiography ......................................................................................... 29
3. The Evaluation .......................................................................................29
3.1. The Press.................................................................................................. 29
3.2. Justice....................................................................................................... 32
3.3. Historians ................................................................................................. 33
4. The Freedom of Science.........................................................................33
History by Night or in Fog? ..........................................................................37
By Serge Thion
The Reception of Pressac ............................................................................48
Reply to Jean-Claude Pressac on the Problem of the Gas Chambers ......59
By Robert Faurisson
Note to the Reader.......................................................................................59
Foreword .....................................................................................................60
1. Introduction ............................................................................................63
1.1. Neither a Photograph nor a Drawing........................................................ 63
1.2. Nothing of a Novelty................................................................................ 63
1.3. Auschwitz: 800,000 Dead Instead of Nine Million.................................. 64
1.4. Pressac no Longer Believes in “Wannsee,” but he still Believes in
Hitler ........................................................................................................ 65
1.5. The Theory of “Casual Gassings”............................................................ 65
1.6. Pressac’s Promises and Reality ................................................................ 66
5

6 Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz: Plain Facts
2. The Obvious Facts that Pressac Could not Ignore..................................68
2.1. “Wannsee” is no Longer “Wannsee” ....................................................... 68
2.2. Not much Could be Secret about Auschwitz............................................ 68
2.3. The Archives Have Survived in Very Great Number............................... 69
2.4. 1972, the two Chief Architects Had to Be Acquitted............................... 69
2.5. Typhus Epidemics Combated through the Use of Zyklon B.................... 70
2.6. Cremation: a Hygienic Measure............................................................... 72
2.7. Crematories Planned without Homicidal Gas Chambers ......................... 72
2.8. Other Obvious Facts that he Could not Fail to Mention........................... 73
3. Realities that Pressac Never Mentions ...................................................74
3.1. Neither a Photograph nor a Plan of Crematory I...................................... 74
3.2. No Photograph of the “Gas Chamber” of Crematory II ........................... 74
3.3. Not a Word about the Forensic Studies.................................................... 75
3.4. Not one Complete Photograph from The Auschwitz Album ..................... 75
3.5. Not a Word about the Aerial Reconnaissance Photos .............................. 76
3.6. Not a Word about the Morgue Corpse Register (Leichenhallenbuch) ..... 76
3.7. Other Documents Passed over in Silence................................................. 77
3.8. Other Silences .......................................................................................... 77
4. Expedients that Pressac Borrows from other Historians ........................78
4.1. Unsubstantiated Assertion........................................................................ 78
4.2. Recourse to Unverified Testimonies ........................................................ 79
4.3. Deciphering the Code............................................................................... 82
4.4. The “Slips” and “Bungles” of the SS ....................................................... 83
5. Deceits that are Pressac’s own ...............................................................86
5.1. Improper Insertions .................................................................................. 86
5.2. Marrying a Big Lie to a Small Truth........................................................ 87
5.3. Tampering with Plans and Maps.............................................................. 88
5.4. Deceptive Wording even in the Titles...................................................... 88
5.5. Substitution of “(Homicidal) Gas Chamber” for “Morgue”..................... 89
5.6. Substitution of “(Homicidal) Gas Chamber” for “Disinfection
Chamber” ................................................................................................. 89
5.7. Documents with no Bearing on the Elements to Be Proved..................... 90
5.8. Use of Fictitious References .................................................................... 91
5.9. A Deliberately Maintained Confusion ..................................................... 92
5.10. The Tightrope Walker and the Hoaxer..................................................... 93
5.11. A Concentrate of Deceptions: the Two Accounts of Homicidal
Gassings ................................................................................................... 93
5.12. A Hail Storm of Deceptions..................................................................... 94
6. The Ramblings of the Novelist...............................................................96
7. Conclusion............................................................................................100
8. Appendix: Document NI-9912.............................................................103
9. Three Further Notes to my Reply to Jean Claude Pressac ...................112
9.1. Jean Claude Pressac and Robert Jan van Pelt......................................... 112
9.2. Fundamental Questions about Auschwitz .............................................. 113
9.3. Ten Years Ago, Jean-Claude Pressac’s Capitulation ............................. 114

Table of Contents 7
Auschwitz: The End of a Legend ...............................................................117
By Carlo Mattogno
1. Introduction to this New Edition ..........................................................117
2. Introduction ..........................................................................................118
3. The Cremation Ovens of Auschwitz-Birkenau According to Jean-
Claude Pressac......................................................................................121
3.1. Capacity: The Facts................................................................................ 123
3.2. The Coke................................................................................................ 127
3.3. The Ovens .............................................................................................. 127
3.4. The Flames............................................................................................. 130
3.5. The Pits .................................................................................................. 130
4. The Cremation Ovens of Auschwitz-Birkenau According to
Cremation Technology.........................................................................131
4.1. Coke Consumption................................................................................. 131
4.2. Capacity ................................................................................................. 132
4.3. The Reason For Constructing Large Crematories .................................. 133
4.4. Number of Cremations in 1943: Estimate of the SS. ............................. 133
4.5. Number Cremated in 1943: Coke Consumption .................................... 134
4.6. Cremation Capacity of the Crematories in 1943 .................................... 134
4.7. The Duration of the Fireproof Brick of the Cremation Ovens................ 135
4.8. The Deportation and “Extermination” of the Hungarian Jews............... 137
5. Genesis and Development of the “Final Solution”...............................138
5.1. Choosing Auschwitz as Extermination Center....................................... 138
5.2. Auschwitz: The First Gassing ................................................................ 141
6. Crematories II and III...........................................................................144
6.1. The Originally Intended Use of the Crematories ................................... 144
6.2. The Term “Special”................................................................................ 145
6.3. The Purpose of Zyklon B Deliveries...................................................... 147
6.4. Structural Changes of the Crematories................................................... 149
6.5. Ventilation System................................................................................. 153
6.6. “Gassing Cellar” and other “Glitches”................................................... 156
6.7. The “Normal Gas Chamber”.................................................................. 158
6.8. “10 Gas Testers “: The Definite Proof?.................................................. 160
7. Bunkers 1 and 2....................................................................................161
8. Crematories IV and V...........................................................................165
9. Conclusion............................................................................................169
10. Appendix ..............................................................................................170
10.1. Preface to the Documents....................................................................... 170
10.2. Documents ............................................................................................. 172
11.3. Glossary ................................................................................................. 187
Bibliography.................................................................................................191
Index of Names.............................................................................................195

9
Preface
By Germar Rudolf
1. The End of Jean-Claude Pressac
Between the late 1980s and the mid 1990s, French pharmacist Jean-Claude
Pressac was the darling of Western media with respect to research into the history
of the concentration camp Auschwitz. The media hoped to have found in
him the technically qualified expert who could counter the arguments and the
methods of those who wish to revise the history of the concentration camp
complex Auschwitz in particular and the Holocaust in general. The contributions
of Serge Thion and myself give an overview of this exaggerated praise
from the judicial system, the media, and scientists. My own article makes it
clear that these hymns of praise have been premature and that Pressac’s book
does not meet the standards of scientific work.
Even in terms of technical competence, the work Pressac has delivered is
unsatisfactory in many respects, as Prof. Faurisson and Carlo Mattogno will
show in this book. His friends of the same cast of opinion also seem to be
skeptical of his technical qualifications, since the English version of Pressac’s
last 1 work was somewhat censored by being subsumed in a collection supported
by other pieces, as Prof. Faurisson will show in his short addendum.
The present book was written to demonstrate to the world that the works of
the one who has been advertised as the Auschwitz specialist were better considered
to be novels than studies that should be taken seriously as a work of
historical science. The present book constitutes a corrective review, with the
consequence that the historical account on the subject of the concentration
camp complex Auschwitz will be fundamentally revised. The revision of the
historical account on concentration camp Auschwitz, begun by revisionists
and brought before a broader public by Pressac, now returns to its origins.
1
Pressac died in summer 2003, see Jürgen Graf, “Jean-Claude Pressac and revisionism,” The
Revisionist 1(4) (2003), pp. 426-432; Carlo Mattogno, “My Memories of Jean-Claude Pressac,”
ibid., pp. 432-435.

10 Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz: Plain Facts
2. Should there Be Freedom for Revisionism?
This book, which challenges the traditional historical version on the annihilation
of the Jews in the concentration camp complex Auschwitz through an
analysis of Pressac’s latest and last book, claims to be in conformance with
the standards of science and scholarship. After reading it, the reader will certainly
agree with that. But that did not stop the German authorities from ordering
the confiscation and destruction of all copies of this book and all data and
data carriers used for its writing. 2 As editor of this book, I avoid prosecution
only because by that time I had fled Germany.
If this book is scholarly indeed, then it should be protected by Germany’s
surrogate constitution, the so-called Basic Law, which in Article 5, Section 3,
protects science without restriction, on the condition that the book does not itself
harm similarly protected fundamental rights of others.
The German authorities – and many other European countries 3 – justify the
burning of this book 4 by claiming that works that end in completely or partly
denying or refuting the intentional, industrially organized annihilation of
European Jews by the National Socialists – in other words, the Holocaust –
are fundamentally incapable of being scientific, since anyone who operated
according to scientific method must automatically come to the conclusion that
the generally accepted description of the Holocaust corresponds to historical
reality.
Others object that revisionist works should not be afforded the protection
of Civil Rights even if they fulfill formal criteria of being scholarly and scientific.
The reason given for this is that it is a clearly established fact that the
Holocaust happened and that any assertion to the contrary represents an offense
to the human dignity of Holocaust victims, their descendants and relatives,
and to the Jewish people generally. By denying the Holocaust, fundamental
rights of others are massively harmed. Since human dignity must be
valued more highly than freedom of science, therefore science should be for-
2
3
4
The German edition can be found online at vho.org/D/anf. It was ordered seized and destroyed
in 1997 by County Court Böblingen, ref. 9(8) Gs 228/97). On April 8, 1999, the
German Agency for the Protection of the Youth put it on its index of literature endangering
the youth: Bundesanzeiger, no. 81, April 30, 1999.
France, Belgium, Austria, Czechia, Switzerland, Spain, the Netherlands, and Poland also punish
historical dissenters. Other European countries are in the process of introducing similar
censorship laws. Canada and Australia persecuted dissenters with their “Human Rights
Commissions.” Cum grano salis, the following argument is valid for these countries as well.
That confiscated books are indeed burned by the German authorities, was confirmed by two
newspaper reports: Abendzeitung (Munich), March 7/8, 1998: “The remaining copies will
possibly be destroyed in a garbage burning facility.”
(www.germarrudolf.com/persecute/docs/ListPos58_d.pdf); Zur Zeit (Vienna), No. 9/1998
(Febr. 27): “65 years ago this happened publicly, but today it is accomplished secretly in
waste incinrator facilities.” (www.germarrudolf.com/persecute/docs/ListPos59_d.pdf)

Germar Rudolf, Preface 11
bidden to adopt such theories, because the mere proposition that the Holocaust
– the purposeful, planned destruction of the Jews by the Third Reich – did not
happen is an implicit claim that Holocaust history was knowingly fabricated
for the purpose of deception and possibly in order to obtain material or political
advantages. This would be an affront to the dignity of anyone who might
be implicated thereby that cannot be tolerated.
In what follows I would like to analyze this matter more thoroughly.
3. Unrestricted Research and Revision: Basis of Science
The basis of the reasoning just stated is that freedom of science should be
thought a lesser good than human dignity. This idea is questionable. Science is
not merely a plaything of unworldly researchers. On the contrary, it is not only
the highest manifestation of our capacity to perceive and understand, but in
the word’s most general sense it is the basis of every human capacity to perceive
and to understand that exceeds that of animals. It is the basis of every
human mode of living and doing that is distinguishable from the modes of living
and doings of animals. One could say that science, in the word’s most
comprehensive sense, first made man human and gave him that dignity that
lifts him above the animals. The freedom of science is thus inextricably involved
with human dignity.
Scientific understanding serves human decision-making both on the individual
and on the political level; the natural drive to seek knowledge was implanted
in man by nature. In order to make valid decisions, that is, decisions
which conform to reality, it is an essential precondition that scientific knowledge
be true. Truth as the only test for scientific validity means: every other
influence on the process of discovering scientific truth, whether economic or
political, must be excluded. It also must be made certain that all scientific
findings can be published and distributed without hindrance, because it is only
through the unhindered confrontation of scientific opinions in open forums
that it can be insured that the most convincing opinion, being most in conformity
with reality, will prevail. In our case that means that there can be no reason
to suppress an opinion in accord with scientific norms in any way.
Increasingly in recent years the freedom of science in the area of contemporary
history has been constrained, in that scientists who offend against the
ruling zeitgeist through expression of their scientific views have their social
reputations destroyed by political or media inquisitions or are threatened with
loss of their professional standing. Sometimes the judicial system is brought in
in order to add criminal prosecution to professional ruin. The recently intensified
criminal prosecution of revisionist opinion in Germany through modification
of Sec. 130 of the German Penal Code, which punishes not only the denial
of genocide committed by the Third Reich, but also anything positive ut-

12 Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz: Plain Facts
tered about that period of German history, 5 is a striking example of the growing
inquisitorial drive in Germany’s society.
Prof. Hellmut Diwald has characterized this shielding of discussion on the
Holocaust with the penal law as follows: 6
“In the history of the Third Reich there is no complex of questions that
is more hopelessly kept from close examination by German historians than
the horrible fate of the Jews during the war. The Basic Law of Bonn [capital
city of West Germany] does guarantee the freedom of research and science.
But a series of related decisions and verdicts has shown that one
would be well advised neither to expose oneself to the risk of being a test
case for the freedom to invoke this fundamental right by choosing this subject
matter nor to expose oneself to the lesser risk of even peripherally violating
the 21st Law modifying the Penal Code of June 15, 1985, and provoking
an indictment due to such an offense. This means that the very complex
of questions of contemporary historical research has been made taboo,
which, together with the continually upheld theme of collective guilt,
burdens the German people like no other event.”
There is a general understanding that the intensified punishment of revisionist
viewpoints primarily serves to combat uneducated, unteachable rightwing
extremists. The philologist Dr. Arno Plack thinks otherwise. In his view,
the 7
“‘actual intended groups’ with respect to the punishment of the
‘Auschwitz lie’ [are ...] the office-holding German historians, who, because
of forced confession (one time!) and threat of punishment impose upon
themselves a judicious form of restraint with respect to certain decisive
questions. […] A judicial system that clamps down on [possibly] erroneous
opinions that are not due to any intention to injure is not without effect. It
fortifies the widespread tendency to be silent in the face of burning questions;
it demands readiness to give the expected lip service and it stirs up
doubt as to [apparently] irrefutable facts even among all those who have
learnt, ‘The truth always prevails.’ […] Finally, such a judicial system
stimulates denunciation. […]
By the principles of a liberal community, the best weapon in the battle
of opinions is not prohibition or punishment, but argument, the ‘weapon
word,’ as Lev Kopelev has said. If we are not to lose our belief that democracy
is a viable form of society, we cannot accept that it should defend
against [presumably] making Hitler inoffensive with the same compulsory
methods which the dictator himself quite naturally used to suppress contrary
opinion. […] I believe his [Hitler’s] ghost, his repression of mere
5
6
7
www.bmj.bund.de/enid/Presse/Pressemitteilungen_58.html
Deutschland einig Vaterland, Ullstein, Berlin 1990, p. 71.
Hitlers langer Schatten, Langen Müller, Munich 1993, pp. 308ff.

Germar Rudolf, Preface 13
doubt, his tendency simply to prohibit what was not acceptable in the ruling
system, yet needs to be overcome in those who overcame him.”
As part of the intensified persecution of Holocaust revisionism, Germany’s
legislators and judges have decided to put revisionist research on the “Index of
Forbidden Knowledge.” One indication of this are the numerous confiscations
of revisionist books published by my publishing company. The present book
is not the only victim of German government book burning. As a matter of
fact, the list of publications confiscated and banned by German authorities that
I either wrote, edited, or published includes now at least 14 items. 8 In effect, a
moratorium on research has been declared. In Germany, the research goal to
clarify the technical and historical background of the supposed mass murder
of Jews has been put into the “Catalog of Forbidden Research Goals.” The
only opinions and conclusions that will be accepted are those that fit the predetermined
picture.
This official behavior is incompatible with the thousands of years old principles
of Occidental epistemology, which Prof. Hans Mohr has concisely expressed
as follows: 9
“‘Freedom of research’ also implies that the purpose of research may
be anything whatever. An ‘Index of Forbidden Knowledge’ or a ‘Catalog
of Taboo Research Objects’ are irreconcilable with self-understanding and
the worth of science, because we must unfailingly and in all circumstances
maintain that understanding is better than ignorance.”
It is equally irreconcilable with self-understanding and the worth of science
when the protectors of the zeitgeist may require this or that conclusion or forbid
some other. That science is free always and before all else presupposes
that it is free to take any approach and reach any conclusion. No science that
is worthy of the name can exclude any conclusion beforehand.
Biologist Prof. Dr. Walter Nagl once said it very concisely: 10
“The exact sciences [like other scholarly disciplines] are extremely
conservative and dogmatic. Any corroboration of a paradigm is welcome,
whereas any innovation or revision will long meet with resistance; the instinct
for preservation (including self-preservation!) is stronger than the
search for truth. Therefore, new findings usually gain acceptance only
when sufficient numbers of researchers vouch for them: then the dogmatic
status quo topples, a ‘scientific revolution’ occurs, a new paradigm replaces
the old. […] The bottom line is that no student, no researcher and
no layman should believe any facts to be ‘conclusively proven,’ even if the
textbooks present them as such.”
8
9
www.vho.org/Authors/MoreCrimes.html for details.
Natur und Moral, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1987, p. 41.
10 Gentechnologie und Grenzen der Biologie, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt
1987, p. 126f.

14 Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz: Plain Facts
Usually it takes a number of researchers attacking the same point in order
for newer theories to prevail over older, no longer adequate theories. Although
some science has held good for thousands of years it is also true that no scientific
paradigm – whether in the exact or in the social sciences – can claim to
have eternal validity. Rather it is the duty of scientists and also lay people not
simply to accept the obvious, supposedly finally proven facts, even when they
are there in the textbooks, but always to look critically on them. This applies
also to research into the Holocaust complex. I agree with German left-wing
historian Prof. Dr. Peter Steinbach, who once stated: 11
“The Basic Law [German constitutional law] protects scientific research
and basically wants the impartiality of this research. This is especially
true for history, which is, after all, not about defining a central
thread and making it binding, but about making offers for the discussion.
In a pluralistic society, this must be manifold and controversial.”
In particular, in historiography and in the publication of the findings
thereof there is now the phenomenon that German journalist Eckhard Fuhr,
speaking of the treatment of irksome scientists, has characterized as systematic
falsification. 12 It is not the scientifically determinable truth of a scientist’s
assertion that is the criterion for media and politicians, but rather the question
of its political usefulness.
Under pressure to conform to the zeitgeist and in fear of the inquisition
conducted by the media and the political and judicial authorities, many scientists
feel forced to compromise and to adjust their research findings to the political
standard. This suppression of the full truth or even the promotion of a
half- or even a complete lie due to public pressure is the most baneful thing
that can happen to science. Such conduct not only destroys respect for science
but also inflicts immeasurable harm on our people and on all mankind.
I agree furthermore with Prof. Dr. Christian Meier’s assertion: 13
“But otherwise one can in my view say that what we historians work
out in accordance with the rules is not dangerous. I do not think that truth,
if it is the truth, is dangerous.”
In the writing of history especially, it is half-truths and lies that are dangerous
for the amity of peoples.
With respect to our thesis this much is clear: No matter which theories revisionists
start out from and no matter which results they may come up with,
they should be free to do their work and should not be restricted in any way as
long as they satisfy the norms of scientific method. To penalize a certain result
of scientific work would be to kill the freedom to do science and with it science
itself, which without question violates Article 19, Sec. 2 of Germany’s
11 P. Steinbach, ARD Tagesthemen (First German Public TV news), June 10, 1994
12 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Dec. 23, 1994, p. 1.
13 In: Berichte und Mitteilungen der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Heft 3/1994, p. 231.

Germar Rudolf, Preface 15
Basic Law, which lays down that no fundamental right may be infringed on in
an essential way. Restriction of the freedom of science can therefore never depend
on what theories a scientific work starts out from or what results it
comes up with. The freedom of science can only be restricted with respect to
the methods that are used to acquire knowledge. For example, research which
endangers the mental or physical health of persons is not covered by human
rights.
Since in science there are no final or self-evident truths, then also there can
be no such truths in respect to scientific investigation of the events of the
Third Reich. Even in this subject area it is a fundamental duty of science to
criticize old results and revise them when necessary.
Revisionism is an essential component of science.
4. Toward Freedom of Expression
It is not difficult to protect the freedom to express an opinion that corresponds
with that of the ruling class. The most horrible dictatorships fulfill that
criteria. A nation that honors human rights distinguishes itself in that it allows
the freedom of expression to those whose ideas are not welcome to the ruling
class. The right to freedom of expression is the citizen’s defense against state
interference: 14
“In its historical development down to the present the function of fundamental
rights consists in providing the citizen defensive rights against
the use of state power (Decision of the German Federal Constitutional
Court, BVerfGE 1, 104,). Standing judicial opinion is that this is its primary
and central effect even today (BVerfGE 50, 337).”
Taken on its own merits, an opinion that contradicts the current historical
description of the Holocaust endangers neither the formal foundations of any
nation, such as human rights, national sovereignty, the division of power, or
the independence of justice, nor the formal legitimacy of those who hold
power, so such an opinion must be tolerated. However, there is hardly any
other area in which many Western nations proceeds more repressively against
undesired opinions than with respect to the Holocaust. 15
The right to free expression can only be restricted when its exercise infringes
the human rights of others. When someone says the Holocaust did not
happen the way we have always heard it did, or says it did not happen at all,
his right to free expression will be de facto denied. The reason given for this is
14 K.-H. Seifert, D. Hömig (eds.), Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Nomos,
Baden Baden 1985, pp. 28f.
15 On the reasons for this behavior, cf. G. Rudolf, “Revisionism – an Ideology of Libération,”
The Revisionist, in preparation.

16 Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz: Plain Facts
often that such assertions harm the dignity of those Jews once persecuted and
killed, their descendants today, and the entire racial group of Jews.
Such argument follows the principles of protecting the direct victim of a
crime in order to protect it from slander thereafter. For example, most would
accept that it cannot be allowed for people to slander a woman who has been
raped, saying she invented the story of the rape only to sneakily get retribution
from, or take revenge on, the tried and convicted rapist for some other reason.
This applies even when there may be doubt as to the truth of the woman’s representations
in light of her statements and the court records. The same protection
must be allowed to every Jewish fellow citizen whose former (possibly
only claimed) torturer was duly convicted. Nevertheless, it is not clear to me
why all the relatives of the victim and all the members of the same religious
group should enjoy the same protection.
In every case, however, he who maintains that the supposed crime did not
take place must be given the opportunity to produce the proof of his assertion.
Anything else would be contrary to the order of a nation under the rule of law.
To determine whether the proof is correct, there must be scientific examination
of the evidence.
For example, a scientific work that comes to the conclusion that there
never was a Holocaust would not improperly diminish anyone’s dignity, since
the results of scientific work may not be forbidden without coming into conflict
with the fundamental right to freedom of science (Art. 19, Sec. 2, Basic
Law). In a state under the rule of law, such a work must be permitted to be
used as evidence in order that an accused might provide evidence in defense
of his opinion.
The only things that could possibly be outlawed are accusations that certain
persons have lied with sinister motives, provided such accusations are not
backed up with convincing evidence. But even such potential libels against alleged
victims of crimes should be a matter of civil law suits, not of criminal
law.
5. Battle Zone “Common Knowledge”
Section 244 of Germany’s criminal procedural rules permits judges to refuse
evidence on the grounds of “common knowledge.” This provision allows
judges not to have to prove over and over again things that have been proven
in court many times before and which are commonly accepted as true. There
is nothing objectionable about this paragraph, which seeks to restrict delaying
tactics in judicial procedure. To return to our previous example, a woman who
has already proven several times and in the opinion of the court could still
prove that she actually was raped should not be required to prove it anew before
the whole world each time someone comes forward who disputes the

Germar Rudolf, Preface 17
event. Of course, this “common knowledge” principle does not exclude that
there are circumstances, under which the evidence should be reexamined. It is
a judicial rule even in Germany that common knowledge does not endure forever
and that there are times when the principle should be suspended.
For one, the principle fails when a significant dispute about the commonly
accepted fact occurs in public. For another, every court is duty-bound to suspend
the principle when it receives evidence that is superior in evidentiary
value to evidence formerly submitted. A third principle is laid down in Section
245 of the German rules, which determine that judges must not reject evidence
that is already present in the court room, since in such cases obviously no delaying
tactics are being used. 16
However, it is media inquisitions organized by mostly left-leaning governing
elites as well as draconian prosecution of any dissenter, even of any academic
historian, which make it impossible to hold a significant public debate
on Holocaust matters.
This would not be so bad if one were at least permitted to present in court
evidence that is both already present in the court room and which is superior
in evidentiary value to what had been presented to German courts before.
Unfortunately, every court in Germany does rejects any motion to introduce
evidence already present in the court room or to determine merely the
fact, as to whether or not new evidence is superior to old. This often happens
by arguing that on the grounds of “common knowledge” it would not be permissible
to accept any evidence intended to refute the officially prescribed
version of this particular historical event. Of course, common knowledge may
never be a reason to reject evidence already present in the court room, and the
evidentiary value of evidence is something that can certainly never be common
knowledge. However, the German Federal Supreme Court has approved
this practice in open violation of German law, because – let me paraphrase the
court’s decision here: “We always did it that way.” 17 In the meantime, the
same court has even ruled that defense lawyers who dare to offer or ask for
evidence supporting revisionist claims commit a crime themselves and have to
be prosecuted for incitement to hatred. 18
16 Cf. Detlef Burhoff, Handbuch für die strafrechtliche Hauptverhandlung, 4th ed., Verlag für
die Rechts- und Anwaltspraxis, Recklinghausen 2003, no. 676
(www.burhoff.de/haupt/inhalt/praesentes.htm).
17 German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof), ref. 1 StR 193/93.
18 German Federal Supreme Court, ref. 5 StR 485/01; Sigmund P. Martin, Juristische Schulung,
11/2002, pp. 1127f.; Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2002, p. 2115, Neue Strafrechts-
Zeitung 2002, p. 539; see also the German daily newspaper of April 11, 2002.

18 Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz: Plain Facts
6. On the Defense of Human Rights
The most radical position of the opponents of Holocaust revisionism is that
which denies all freedom to revisionism whatever, on the grounds that revisionism
and its theories harm the dignity of Jews. I have some questions about
this:
– Whose human dignity is more diminished, that of the alleged victim
whose claimed suffering is disputed, or that of the convicted defendant
who may have been erroneously convicted?
– Whose human dignity is more harmed, that of the alleged victim of
whom some people think his suffering is a lie, or that of the scientist
who is accused of lying and whose career is destroyed, his family ruined,
and who is finally put into jail?
German courts protect the dignity of every Jew who, in connection with the
Holocaust, has been accused of lying directly or (supposedly) indirectly, from
any conceivable attack. In the sense of the extended protection for victims
many are prepared to accept this.
When the same courts use the absolute objection of “common knowledge”
to refuse to hear any mitigating evidence they dismiss or prohibit everything
that could protect the dignity of the scientist who is accused of constructing a
pseudoscientific structure of lies. Does not the scientist have the same right to
the protection of his dignity as any Jewish citizen? Is he not entitled to have
his arguments heard and considered in court?
German courts protect at law the dignity of the actual or supposed victims
of the Holocaust from any conceivable attack. When these courts use the absolute
objection of “common knowledge” to refuse to hear any mitigating evidence
they dismiss or prohibit everything that could restore the dignity of the
convicted SS man. Does not the convicted SS man have dignity that needs to
be protected? Many of our contemporaries may have asked themselves this
question, and the fact that many would probably answer this question spontaneously
with a stark “No” shows that the principle of equal treatment before
the law has long disappeared from the understanding of many citizens. But, in
fact, the dignity of the SS man and the dignity of the Jew are equally deserving
of protection.
German courts protect the dignity of the supposed Jewish victims from any
conceivable attack. At the same time they dismiss or prohibit anything that
could restore the dignity of those of whom it is said, they were members of a
criminal organization, like the SS. They dismiss or prohibit anything that
could restore the dignity of the ordinary Wehrmacht soldier, of whom it is said
by his service he enabled and prolonged the murders.
German courts protect the dignity of the members of the entire Jewish race
from any conceivable attack. They dismiss or prohibit anything that could restore
the dignity of the entire German people, who are marked as criminals.

Germar Rudolf, Preface 19
The German state and its component German judicial system accept every
injury to the dignity of the German people and each German person, or injure
it themselves, and forbid anything that might defend this dignity. Does not this
nation and its judicial system commit a massive breach of Article 1, Section 1,
of its constitutional Basic Law, in which human dignity is stipulated as inviolable
and the government is expected to use every power it possesses to defend
the dignity of every person?
Does not this country and its component judicial system violate the equal
treatment principle laid down in Article 3, Sections 1, 3 of the German Basic
Law by defending the dignity of the Jews but neglecting or even forbidding
the defense of the dignity of Germans generally, and of SS members, Waffen
SS members, and Wehrmacht soldiers in particular?
Does not this country and its component judicial system deny to all who
hold an exact scientific worldview the freedom to profess that worldview, a
freedom specified in Article 4, Section 1, of the German Basic Law? We are
compelled to believe in bodies that burn by themselves, in the disappearance
of millions of people without any trace, in geysers of blood spurting from
mass graves, in boiling human fat collecting in incineration pits, in flames meters
high spurting from crematory chimneys, in Zyklon B insertion hatches
that are not there, in gassing with diesel motors, which is not practical for
murder, and so on and so forth. The next thing we will be asked to believe in
are witches riding on broomsticks.
Does not this country and its component judicial system refuse to allow
someone to communicate his opinion of things connected with the Holocaust
from the standpoint of his worldview derived from the exact sciences, contrary
to Article 5, Section, 1 of its Basic Law?
Finally, does not this country and its component judicial system deny to
every researcher, scientist, and teacher his right to conduct an unprescribed,
unrestricted search for the truth and to publish his scientific opinion, contrary
to Article 5, Section 3, of its Basic Law?
This country and its component judicial system are inflicting an ongoing
injury to the majority of its people, in that it refuses the presentation of possible
mitigating evidence, contrary to Articles 1, 3, 4 and 5 of its Basic Law,
It would seem to be high time to change this practice if we are to keep it
from being said that this country – together with many others in Europe – is
grossly violating human rights. A first step should be to stop banning scientific
books and throwing their authors into prison.
Germar Rudolf, Steinenbronn, May 5, 1995
revised in Chicago, March 20, 2005